1. ' Applicant Aarab alias Katoo Nindwani is being tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot for an offence punishable under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. ' It is needless to embark upon the facts of the case, since the bail plea is advanced solely on the ground of hardship suffered by the applicant who is in custody for a period of three years nine months and eighteen days without trial.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Mahar learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned counsel for the State, who concedes to grant of, bail in view of the circumstances of the case as aforesaid.
4. ' The peculiar features of this case are that long back on 28-11-2001, this Court while dismissing the bail application directed the trial Court to dispose of the case within four months. This direction could not be complied with and again on 22-12-2003, this Court was constrained to make certain observations and forward a copy thereof to Member Inspection Team (M.I.T.) at Principal seat as the bail application was not being decided by the trial Court. Ultimately, an order has been passed by the learned Incharge Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot on 1-1-2004, wherein he has highlighted the circumstances under which the trial could not make headway.
5. ' On a perusal of the said order it appears that on 1-10-2003, attendance of compliant Shahmore was procured through non-bailable warrants of arrest and he was released on executing bond but thereafter the P.Ws. Could not be produced as one of them had gone to Saudi Arabia. On some occasions the accused persons were not produced from jail, but in any case P.Ws. Did not attend when lastly the matter was taken up by the trial Court. It is, thus, manifestly clear that the prospects of proceedings of the trial are more or less dark and such situation may continue for an unascertained period. In this view of the matter learned counsel has urged that the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and. This Court would adequately furnish a ground for grant of bail on hardship basis owing to lack of trial.
6. ' I have gone through the authorities cited by learned counsel. In the case of Muhammad Aslam v.
7. The State 1998 SCMR 2147, the directions of High Court were not implemented and bail was granted by the Honourable Supreme Court. Similarly, in the case of Behram v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 73 there was no compliance of the directions issued two years back therefore, relying on Manzoor Watoo's case reported in 2000 SCM R 107 bail was allowed. In the case of Abdul Hameed v. The State 2003 M LD 19, this Court took note of the detention of two years and eight months and allowed concession of bail since the trial was making no progress. Similarly, in the case of Punhal v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 90 considering detention without trial, concession of bail was allowed. Similarly, this Court on examining a large number of authorities on the point granted bail in Shabbir v. State 2003 PCr.LJ 1521 where the period of detention was two years eleven months and twenty-four days.
8. ' In the cases cited above the longer period of detention without trial has been considered as a ground of hardship. Instantly, the accused/applicant is in custody for a period of more than three years and nine months, but the trial has not yet taken the on set for no fault on the part of the accused. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto learned State Counsel has thus, rightly conceded to grant of bail.
9. ' Resultantly, in the aforesaid circumstances, the application is allowed. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
10. ' Application stands disposed of along with listed-applications.